Interview with a Demonologist

[joobz]

I haven't read your article yet, but I definitely will.

Because we are human beings.

Simply by giving him a place to speak, you have endorsed him; simply by repeating his words, you have lent your support to them. By remaining silent in the face of falsehood, you have tacitly verified it.

But I definitely agree with Yahzi here. This has been a total failing in the coverage of american elections. During interviews (and especially debates) the politician will make claims. If the reporter doesn't call them out on the facts then and there, it is as though what the person said is true and is approved by the interviewer.

What's even worse is that to appear neutral, news channels will give equal time to opposing views but never state what's truthful.

The balance to a crazy statement is a sane one, not a inverse crazy statement.

 

[RSLancastr]

Remie is doing a fine job you know. I support her and her site.

As do I. Nothing in my comments about this most recent article was meant to imply otherwise.

Hey, you set up a site.

I have.

It's hard work and Remie is doing almost all of it.

Yup, I know that. When I post a new article here on the forum, I expect (and often get) criticism, which I greatly appreciate, even when I don't agree with it.

 

[RemieV]

Because we are human beings.

Simply by giving him a place to speak, you have endorsed him; simply by repeating his words, you have lent your support to them. By remaining silent in the face of falsehood, you have tacitly verified it.

This is how oppressive governments function. Not by manufacturing credible support, but by silencing dissent - which automatically transforms any support into credibility.

I think the way to resolve this is to have two articles; the first one, in which you present him in his own words (without qualifiers, even); and an immediate follow-up (on the same page), in which you present your position. Even if no one actually reads the follow-up, it makes it clear that you have a different opinion; clear in a way that no amount of weasel-words can possibly make clear. Because the point of weasel-words is to register your disapproval without actually disapproving; to conceal your disagreement under a cloak of niceness non-confrontation.

Silence is assent. It always has been, it always will be. To not speak up is the same as to approve.

Oh, totally. But this actually *was* the follow-up article.... to the one that appeared on SkepticReport that I mention within the article. It's linked on the site. For anyone who's interested in that one, and hearing me get really irritated about exorcisms in general, be sure to visit: http://skepticreport.com/religion/devilwithin.htm

And thanks for all the responses. It's no nice to hear from all of you

 

[Yahzi]

And thanks for all the responses. It's no nice to hear from all of you

Your Freudian slip is showing.

 

[RemieV]

lol... That's *it*...

*gets the whip*